**4.1 Participants**

The research was carried out in Shenzhen, China. A stratified random sampling method was utilised to choose 24 kindergartens distributed across socio-economically diverse regions (lower-middle, middle, and upper-middle areas). From each kindergarten, two K1 and two K2 classrooms (catering to children aged 3–4 and 4–5 years, respectively) were randomly selected, summing up to 96 classrooms. Subsequent to determining the participating kindergartens and classrooms, 11 teachers were randomly chosen from the participating kindergartens for an interview. The demographic information of the participating classrooms is presented in **Table 1**.

#### **4.2 Measures**

Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale – Extension (ECERS-E) [22]. The ECERS-E was developed by Sylva et al. [22] in the longitudinal Effective Pre-school, *Exploring Instructional and Interactional Aspects of Process Quality in Preschools and Teachers'… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112519*


#### **Table 1.**

*Demographic information of participating classrooms.*

Primary and Secondary Education (EPPSE) project. This measure aims to estimate the instruction quality including literacy, numeracy, science and diversity which was used to describe the children's development process. It includes 18 items grouped into four subscales. The scores for each item range from 1 (indicating inadequate quality), 3 (indicating minimal quality), 5 (indicating good quality), to 7 (indicating excellent quality) based on the indicators. It has shown good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.83– 0.97, [22]) and good validity (CMIN/DF = 1.102, CFI = 0.939, RMSEA = 0.034, and TLI = 0.919) in Chinese preschools [13].

Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Well-being Scale (SSTEW). Furthermore, trained classroom observers used SSTEW [12] to measure teachers' pedagogical practice which supports children's sustained shared thinking and emotional well-being. This scale was developed by Siraj et al. (2005) and it consists of 14 elements rated from 1 (inadequate) to 7 (excellent) and focuses on teachers' practice in (1) building trust, confidence, and independence; (2) social and emotional wellbeing; (3) supporting and extending language and communication; (4) supporting learning and critical thinking; and (5) assessing learning and language. It has shown good validity (CMIN/DF = 1.042, CFI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.070, and TLI = 0.970) in Chinese preschools [13].

Interview protocol. The interview protocol was developed to elicit participating teachers' reflections on their teaching practice and their professional development needs. This protocol comprises two parts and a total of 10 questions. The first part of the interview explores the challenges that the teachers face in their daily teaching practice (e.g., what kind of difficulties have you met in daily teaching?). The second part of the interview seeks to understand the teachers' prior PD experiences and their perceived PD needs (e.g., what type of PD programmes have you ever participated in?). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 participating teachers after observing their pedagogical activities. Each interview lasted around 45 min and was recorded and transcribed for analysis.

#### **4.3 Procedure**

The quality evaluation was conducted by a team of four researchers, each holding a master's degree in early childhood education or a related field. Prior to initiating the evaluation process, consent was obtained from both educators and parents through official consent forms. The lead researcher established pairs among the three other researchers who proceeded to jointly conduct classroom observations and evaluations. This process was continued until they achieved a minimum 80% agreement in item-level scores. Throughout, the scoring alignment was regularly monitored, with any discrepancies discussed post-observation and post-quality rating to reach a consensus on all evaluated elements.

After attaining the required 80% agreement threshold, the researchers proceeded with individual observations and evaluations. They employed a non-intrusive approach to observe the pedagogical practices of the teachers, ensuring there was no interference with regular teaching routines. For each classroom, the researchers dedicated 4–5 h to observation and an additional hour for interviewing teachers. This rigorous methodology aimed to produce a thorough and unbiased evaluation of classroom quality.

#### **4.4 Data analysis**

In order to initiate an exploratory analysis of the caliber of teachers' pedagogical practice and quality, the IBM SPSS 23.0 software was employed for descriptive statistical analyses and the Shapiro-Wilk test for testing the normality of the data. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and imported into EXCEL. The subsequent analysis involved open coding, axial coding, and selective coding [23], utilised to dissect the transcriptions and discern emergent themes. The analysis procedure was bifurcated into two steps: the initial stage involved scrutinising the transcripts and pinpointing crucial data, while the latter stage entailed structuring the vital data into consistent themes and categories. To ensure the trustworthiness of our qualitative data analysis, peer debriefing was employed [24]. Peer debriefing involved engaging a colleague, who held the position of Professor in ECEC, to verify the accuracy of the identified themes in capturing patterned responses and the meaningful interpretation of the interview data.

### **5. Results**

#### **5.1 Instruction and interaction quality of teachers' practice**

As shown in **Table 2**, the total average ECERS-E score was *M* = 2.93 (*SD* = 0.48), which illustrated the inadequate level of instruction quality on the 7-point scale. Regarding the subscales, classrooms received slightly higher scores in literacy M = 3.63 (SD = 0.57) and the lowest score in diversity M = 1.74 (SD = 0.41). The scores in mathematics (M = 3.24, SD = 0.87) and science (M = 3.11, SD = 1.07) also indicated the minimal quality of instruction. Results suggest that teachers showed minimal quality of instruction regarding literacy, mathematics, and science, and they displayed inadequate quality of diversity.

**Table 3** demonstrates the interaction quality measured by SSTEW. Classrooms received a minimal quality of interaction (M = 3.92, SD = 0.60). Regarding the

*Exploring Instructional and Interactional Aspects of Process Quality in Preschools and Teachers'… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112519*


#### **Table 2.**

*Instruction quality measured by Early childhood environment rating scale-extension (ECERS-E).*


#### **Table 3.**

*Interaction quality measured by sustained shared thinking and emotional well-being scale (SSTEW).*

subscales, classrooms received the highest scores in extending children's language and communications (M = 4.68, SD = 0.89), and the lowest scores in assessing children's learning (M = 2.19, SD = 0.86). In terms of other subscales, classrooms received minimal quality in building trust and confidence and supporting social-emotional well-being (M = 4.44, SD = 0.81), and supporting learning and critical thinking (M = 3.68, SD = 0.71).

In summary, results indicated that teachers generally showed minimal quality of instruction and interaction in Chinese kindergartens. In addition, the quality of providing instruction according to children's diversity and assessing children's learning during instruction was inadequate.
